9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (1) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he second respondent, namely, the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Pathanamthitta granted a permanent registration as a small-scale industrial unit. 2.. It is the case of the petitioner that the Government granted various reliefs to the small-scale industrial units by issuing various Government orders. One such relief is granting sales tax exemption to small-scale industries for a period of 5 years from the date of commencement of commercial production. The petitioner's unit started functioning on June 1, 1987. The petitioner started the unit relying on the promise of the first respondent that his unit will also get sales tax exemption for a period of 5 years from the date of commencement of commercial production. On the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... November 16, 1991, a copy of the same is marked as exhibit P4. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has filed the above original petition praying this Court to quash exhibit P4 and for a further declaration that the petitioner is not liable to pay any sales tax since it has not collected the same on the basis of exhibit P1 certificate. There is yet another prayer for a declaration that the petitioner's unit is entitled for sales tax exemption as mentioned in exhibit P1, that is, for the entire period of five years from June 1, 1987 to May 31, 1992. 4.. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit has been filed by the second respondent. The facts as set out in the original petition by the petitioner has not been disputed in the counter- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned Government Pleader. 6.. Questioning the correctness of the impugned order (exhibit P4), the learned counsel for the petitioner put forth the following arguments for consideration: (1) the petitioner's unit, which is admittedly a small-scale industrial unit, relying on the assurance given by the Government in S.R.O. No. 968 of 1980, made necessary application well in time and in fact by a communication dated November 1, 1989 (exhibit P1), the request of the petitioner was accepted and the General Manager, District Industries Centre issued a certificate by virtue of rule 4 of the Rules for grant of sales tax concession to small-scale industrial units and further it is stated specifically therein that the unit will produce the sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice is rendered with reference to the facts of that case and hard and fast rule cannot be laid. 7.. As narrated above, the petitioner's unit commenced its production on June 1, 1987. It appears that even before that period necessary steps were taken to get a certificate from the District Industries Centre which would enable the firm to refrain from collecting the sales tax. The said application was examined by the second respondent and of course after due enquiry the second respondent issued a certificate dated November 1, 1989 granting sales tax exemption for a period of five years commencing from June 1, 1987 to May 31, 1992. The petitioner's firm is engaged in the manufacture of sized timber and job work in timber sawing by using timbe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue, the petitioner as well as the industries centre proceeded on the basis as if the petitioner's unit would be entitled for sales tax exemption. May be that both the petitioner and the District Industries Centre proceeded on a bona fide erroneous understanding of the law. Way back as early as March 1, 1985, in a case reported in [1990] 79 STC 149 (MP) [FB] (Kher Stone Crusher v. General Manager, District Industries Centre) ruled that to say that a particular process is a manufacturing process, there must be transformation, that a new and different article must emerge, having a distinctive name, character or use. The claim of the petitioner that the bona fide thought that his unit will be granted sales tax exemption because the authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee because the assessee has acted upon the eligibility certificate issued by the competent authority and on the basis of the appreciation of facts, the authority has now changed its opinion and wants to withdraw the certificate.....". So, that was a case where the assessee did not collect sales tax only after obtaining the eligibility certificate. But, in this case, even from June 1, 1987 the assessee did not collect sales tax. 9.. In this view of the matter, this Court holds that the petitioner is liable to pay sales tax for the period from June 1, 1987 to October 31, 1989. The petitioner is not liable to pay sales tax for the period from November 1, 1989 to November 16, 1991. The original petition is allowed in part. Order on C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
